How coffee impacts your hormones (good and bad)

Coffee is more popular than ever, which contributes to its contradictory status.

In moderation, coffee poses minimal health risks for most people. In some cases, coffee even appears to be protective. But many North AmeriÂ­cans now consume coffee in large quantities, which can significantly damage our neuroendocrineimmune system over the long term.

Caffeine is one of coffee’s primary constituents with psychoactive activities. It’s part of a group of substances collectively referred to as methylxanthines. These alkaloids are well known for their ability to increase cognitive abilities, improve energy, enhance well-being, and increase arousal and alertness.

We have posted a great article on our blog at Mindful Muscle that carefully explains the following related topics:

Chris is the founder of Mindful Muscle. You can find him on the
top of a majestic mountain, legs crossed, eyes closed, and doing his
part to elevate our collective consciousness. Otherwise, he's probably at one of the local gyms he frequents, taking his physical fitness to realms only a ninja assassin could relate to. Seriously though, you can contact him at chris(-@-)mindfulmuscle.com
or his website: www.mindfulmuscle.com

Comments

Chris Willitts

Wed, Aug 18, 2010 : 5:53 p.m.

Swag: your so called up to date chart only goes to 2005 and I don't really know about the validity of your source. Although I didn't write the article personally, I trust the credibility of author who wrote it a lot more than the average critique... so I respectfully say that we can agree to disagree. Thank you for your point of view though as I'm sure the topic makes people think either way.

Swag Valance

Sun, Aug 15, 2010 : 3:53 p.m.

I don't understand the logic behind this article at all. First, coffee isn't more popular than ever. Take a look at this chart from the USDA: http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/June07/Findings/Coffee2.htm Per capita coffee consumption in the U.S. is at its lowest levels since the 1920s. Second, the research presented here follows one of the worst leap-of-faith habits in modern nutritionism research: namely, that coffee in this discussion is reduced to something that is equivalent to caffeine. In physics, we call this the "first we assume a spherical chicken" fallacy. Just as you cannot do any effective research looking at calcium and dairy products without also looking at vitamin D, why is coffee here being reduced to the equivalent of coffee? Worse, going back to that USDA plot, you could argue that more Americans are getting their caffeine intake from sodas more than coffee in recent decades. It's sloppiness like this that gives science reporting a bad name and continues to make a lay public confused.